Square-format eye-level FF DSLR ... has its time come, or no?
Nov 14, 2017 22:31:17 #
Angmo wrote:
Well, then...
got too many Rollei lenses. Will await Rollie’s resurrection and world dominance...
got too many Rollei lenses. Will await Rollie’s resurrection and world dominance...
When do you anticipate that happening, Angmo?
Will they bring back the E36 RE and the SL66, do you think?
Only - this time ... all digital?
Nov 15, 2017 08:20:13 #
Chris T wrote:
When do you anticipate that happening, Angmo?
Will they bring back the E36 RE and the SL66, do you think?
Only - this time ... all digital?
Will they bring back the E36 RE and the SL66, do you think?
Only - this time ... all digital?
One can only hope.
Nov 15, 2017 10:11:47 #
Kfallsfotoman wrote:
I flounder on this. br br I shot 2 1/4 Sq in film... (show quote)
Does not 6x4.5 = 4x3 format? available as M43 (MFT)? Affordable in Panasonic's new Pro level G9 weather sealed flagship? You would be throwing little away through cropping. It's called moving with the times.
Nov 15, 2017 13:11:53 #
Angmo wrote:
One can only hope.
Let's start a movement, Angmo ...
Would you like to write the letter to Rollei, or shall I do it?
Nov 15, 2017 13:20:46 #
Delderby wrote:
Does not 6x4.5 = 4x3 format? available as M43 (MFT)? Affordable in Panasonic's new Pro level G9 weather sealed flagship? You would be throwing little away through cropping. It's called moving with the times.
It's not exact, Del .... and 4x3 isn't square ... but the G9 may well have a square re-format option ... probably does, actually ...
6x4.5cm - like 6x7cm before it - transposes to a perfect 8x10 ... which is why those two formats, in film - were so popular ...
But, now, in the digital age ... that format - 6x4.5cm ... just requires more res ... which makes them prohibitively expensive ....
The latest crop of FF sensors (Canon 50mp, Nikon 46mp, Sony 42mp, Pentax 36mp) are mostly all up there now with MF sensors ...
And, for the most part - at half the price!!!!
Nov 15, 2017 13:58:37 #
Chris T wrote:
It's not exact, Del .... and 4x3 isn't square ... ... (show quote)
The explanation helps - but I have to accept rather than fully understand. I cannot calculate the matrix.
Nov 15, 2017 18:20:33 #
Delderby wrote:
The explanation helps - but I have to accept rather than fully understand. I cannot calculate the matrix.
I can't either, Del ....
Many cameras have the "1:1" reformat option in their menus ... which, someone on this thread - indicated equaled - Square ...
I tried it on my Canon EOS Rebel T4i ... and now I have an image shot at that format setting - but, it's STILL a rectangle!!!!
So, I'm not quite sure what that "1:1" setting is supposed to represent ... apparently - it doesn't equate to SQUARE ...
I'd be interested to know if anyone else here has tried it ... and the result they got with it ...
Nov 15, 2017 19:57:54 #
Chris T wrote:
It's not exact, Del .... and 4x3 isn't square ... ... (show quote)
Actually, neither 645 nor 6X7 yields a perfect 8X10; they are very close, but either requires a bit of trimming.
Nov 15, 2017 20:06:15 #
BHC wrote:
Actually, neither 645 nor 6X7 yields a perfect 8X10; they are very close, but either requires a bit of trimming.
BHC .... ya coulda fooled me!!!!
My 6x7 negs ... from all three of the cameras I used to have - utilizing that format (RB67, Universal, Pentax 6x7) all make perfect 8x10s!
Since I've never had or used a 645 ... I don't really know ... but I thought they did, also ... but, it's possible they need cropping ...
Nov 15, 2017 20:26:42 #
Nov 15, 2017 22:29:57 #
Robert Bailey
Loc: Canada
The "Aspect Ratio" feature only works if you're shooting Jpegs.
It doesn't work if you're shooting Raw.
It doesn't work if you're shooting Raw.
Nov 15, 2017 22:56:51 #
Robert Bailey wrote:
The "Aspect Ratio" feature only works if you're shooting Jpegs.
It doesn't work if you're shooting Raw.
It doesn't work if you're shooting Raw.
Never shoot anything else, Robert ....
Still wound up with a rectangle ....
Nov 16, 2017 14:58:20 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
Chris T wrote:
Unless you used 8x8 or 10x10 paper, made by Kodak, especially FOR square format prints .... 
never an issue for me. i had my chromes printed fully square on standard paper, so, for instance, an 8x8 print would be printed on 8x12 paper, and so on. doing large format photography at the time, i always used every bit of my negative as possible. did not like ever cropping.
Nov 16, 2017 15:07:47 #
Chris T wrote:
Never shoot anything else, Robert ....
Still wound up with a rectangle ....
Still wound up with a rectangle ....
Justvcaught up with this thread Chris. My LX100 works 1:1 square in both RAW & jpeg.
Nov 16, 2017 18:13:35 #
TonyP wrote:
Justvcaught up with this thread Chris. My LX100 works 1:1 square in both RAW & jpeg.
Thanks so much, Tony ... just bringing up DPReview's on it right now ... will take a look ... thanks ...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.